Ñåêöèÿ
“Ôèëîëîãè÷åñêèå íàóêè”
Ïîäñåêöèÿ
¹3.
Avramenko
O.V.
Kyiv
National Taras Shevchenko University
The connection of speech acts in English-speaking
dramaturgic discourse in the USA
There is no general model of speech generation & speech perception
in the contemporary theories of speech acts. The reason is that different
communicative situations, different styles & communicative acts demand a variety
of ways of communication development & perception within a particular
discourse [2].
Speech act thinking forms at mental level prior to verbal expression of
communication. M. M. Bachtin came up with this theory emphasizing that the
process of speech act’s generation starts with the speaker’s intention. It is
the intention that determines the option of object & the option of the speech
form of communication. It exists in inseparable unity with the objective-semantic
moment, particular communicative situation & its individual characteristics,
depends on the participants of communicative situation. It obtains a certain
speech form in the process of communication verbalization.
The connection of speech acts within the English-speaking dramaturgic
discourse depends on communicative intention, participants of communicative act
(namely the speaker & the recipient) & on the chosen communicative
channel. The ties of speech acts are divided into two groups regarding their
semantic & pragmatic characteristics. Each of the 2 groups is further
subdivided. We consider the classification of F. Batsevich to be the most
correct as it is scientifically grounded & takes into account all the
criteria of speech acts identification that exist in modern linguistics. Referring
to F. Batsevich”s theory of speech acts & extrapolating it on the discourse
used in English-speaking dramaturgy, we must admit that the features of both
semantic (synsemantic & autosemantic) and pragmatic ties are traced.
In the Semantic type the speech acts are interconnected by means
of logically tactful steps. They can be met either in instituted or
non-instituted discourses. Considering the non-instituted discourse within the
speech acts we can single out the two types of connection:
The synsemantic are such ties that are the result of the semantic
organization of speech acts. In their turn they can have 3 subtypes:
prospective, retrospective and mutual.
The prospective ties can be aimed at speaker’s verbal reaction.
They can also include inquiry (answer, evasion from answer or ignoring); offer
(accept, rejection, ignoring); request (allowance, denial, ignoring); warning
(acceptance/rejection/ignoring); explanation (confirmation of
understanding/consent/disagreement/ignoring); reminding (confirmation of
understanding/misunderstanding/ignoring); compel (acceptance/ignoring); demand
(accept/rejection/ignoring); promise (accept/denial/ignoring); return, report,
application (resolution of a certain content) and so on. They can also be
oriented at physical or mental reaction of the recipient. In this case they are
accompanied by some practical actions on the part of the speaker (request/invitation/complaint/threat/remark/reminding/prompting/instruction
and so on).
Retrospective ties include the speech acts that follow
the prospective ties. They are: consent, disagreement, condemnation, expression
of gratitude, denial, persuasion, permit, justification, confirmation, calming,
advice, doubt and so on.
Mutual ties, that are prospective-retrospective,
include inquiry, repeated inquiry, mutual recollections, reminiscence and so
on.
Autosemantic type doesn’t foresee necessary response on
the part of the speaker; it is explained by the fact that they are self-sufficient.
The following refers to them: diary, notes, pray, swear, confession, thoughts,
facts statement, boasting, etc. These subtypes of discourse can be considered
regarding their systematic organization. So, we can single out sintagmatic ties
of speech acts (prospective and retrospective) and paradigmatic. The
paradigmatic tie contains the antonymic type of cohesion (for instance,
confession, condemnation, encouragement, row, reconciliation, etc.), synonymic
type (that is the tie between complex speech acts, for instance: calming,
consolation, sympathy, assurance, encouragement, etc.), hyponymic tie contains
the speech acts of “abstraction”: party gathering, awarding ceremony, etc. They
are met within a wide speech genre called “official ceremony”.
The pragmatic ties between the speech acts are clearly traced among the
discourses of pragmatic bent:
1. The cohesion of the speech acts is sustained by automatic communication
in standard communicative situations. This subtype is divided into instituted
speech acts, for instance: interrogation, court hearing, scientific debates and
non-instituted speech acts. Their genre unity is provided by the factor of
communication itself, by the fact of interaction and is stipulated by the
context.
2. The coherence of discourse at the level of speech acts is formed and
sustained by the communication participants. The peculiarities of their
thinking, psychological and physical state is taken into account. Switching
between the speech acts, the logics of their following & cohesion depend on
personalities of communication participants.
There are different factors that have an impact on the dynamics of the
speech acts in discourse; they are divided into three subgroups:
CONSTITUTIVE FACTORS:
1.
Change of the communicative situation:
a) Appearance of a third person during the conversation which leads to
the change of topic of the previous conversation;
b) One of the communication participants has left. As a result, the
communicants change the topic of the previous conversation;
c) There is a suspicion of listening in. The communicants change the topic
of their conversation by means of different hints or resort to writing.
d) Presence of a stranger. In this case the conversation is carried out so
that this person couldn’t understand the topic.
e) One of the communicants performs actions that distract him from
interaction.
2. Change of communication channels.
THE FACTORS CONNECTED WITH COMMUNICATION PARTICIPANTS:
1. Change of speaker model:
a) Change of the
communicative situation;
b) Mood swing;
c) When a person is self-immersed. As a
result he does not understand his counterpart and uses specified speech acts;
d) When a person has an altered state
of mind: it can be exhaustion, grief, agitation, etc;
e) Change of the communication tactics
and strategies;
- Usage of indirect communication ways:
jokes, irony, sarcasm, etc;
- Change of usual paralinguistic
behavior, incoherence of paralingual speech code, etc;
f) Change of conversation tactics,
unwillingness to proceed with the previously discussed topics;
2.
Change of recipient model:
a) Change of mood, state, communicative
position, etc;
b) Communicative filters are reduced,
widened, or disappear;
c) The recipient changes the
comprehension strategy; he either interrupts the speaker or doesn’t listen to
him at all;
d) The recipient either sincerely or
deliberately doesn’t follow or understand the strategy of the speaker;
THE CHANGE OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE COMMUNICATION PARTICIPANTS:
a) The communication tone and atmosphere are changed during the process
of communication;
b) The relations of participants are changed;
c) The communication participants refuse to communicate;
On the other hand, the dynamics of speech act’s change is stipulated by
discourse character, namely:
1. by putting questions the response to which can change the previous
topic;
2. by using interrupting signals: but; well, it’s enough; wait a
second; etc.;
3. The signals of the speaker’s strategy change: well, it’s enough;
let’s take it seriously; etc.;
4. Signals of self-interruption on the part of the speaker: what am I
talking about?; what am I getting at?;
5. Ascertaining of the facts that counterpart switches from one topic to
another:
So; hence; acknowledge the fact that;
6. Incomprehension signals and signals of the fact that the recipient
doesn’t share the objective and the communication strategy of the speaker: what
are you saying?; what are you driving at?; what’s the point?; etc.;
7. Ascertaining of the understanding of speaker’s communicative
strategies which were unknown before: as far as I understand; I’ve guessed
it; I see what you mean;
8. Agreement with the speaker and his aim and communicative strategies: well,
it is so; probably, it can be;
9. Disagreement with the speaker and his aim and communicative
strategies: wow, no; why are you saying that; etc.;
10. “Appeal for sincerity” as communication strategy: please, tell
me; tell me the truth; please, confess that;
11. “Attention drawing signals”. They can be used either to continue the
previous speech acts or to switch to another speech acts: just think about;
listen; etc.;
12. Signals that the participant’s psychological state of mind has
changed: what are you talking about?; what do you say?; it can’t be that!;
13. Familiarization signals, softening of switching to another speech
acts: you know; you see; there is only one thing I want to say;
14. Fatic means, such as: excuse, greeting, farewell and those that
change the genre of the discourse;
15. Speech means that state that the speaker has lost his objective, his
communicative strategy etc;
16. Sudden ascertaining of the fact that the recipient has an altered
state of mind and it is impossible to communicate with him using the previous
speech acts;
17. The signals of reluctance to answer the questions or reluctance to
continue the previous topic.
So, the above mentioned classification clearly states that the
alteration and the switching between the speech acts in discourse depend on
various factors connected with all the constituents of the communication
process. The most important factor of speech act’s change is the communicants
themselves.
REFERENCE
1. Bachtin M.M. The speech
acts problems//Speech art aesthetics – Moscow, 1979
2 Batsevich F.S. The
text, discourse & speech act: correlation of the notions//The herald of Kharkiv
National University.Kharkiv,2001. #525. Edition #33
3. Batsevich F.S.
Linquistic genology: problems & prospects.-Lviv:Pais,2005